Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description goes beyond by detailing the bounded, newest-first nature and enumerating what is included and excluded in the response. It clarifies the scope without contradicting annotations, adding useful context about data returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('bounded newest-first page') before detailing inclusions and exclusions. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list tool with an output schema, the description provides complete contextual coverage: it defines the scope (organization), ordering (newest-first), bounded nature, included fields, and exclusions. Since the output schema exists, return details are covered, and pagination cursor guidance is in the schema. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter (limit, cursor, resolved, websiteId) already described. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing the pagination via 'bounded' and 'page'. It meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists a bounded, newest-first page of conversation activity within the authenticated Supovia organization. It specifies the exact fields returned (id, website id, channel, resolved state, unread count, timestamps) and explicitly lists exclusions (message bodies, ids, customer identifiers, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_conversation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its use case by noting it returns only the id needed for an explicit follow-up, suggesting pairing with get_conversation for details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_unresolved_conversation_counts or search_documents, nor does it mention when not to use it. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.